Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Irish National Joint Registry: where are we now?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Ireland is currently in the process of establishing a National Joint Registry.

Aim

We aim to determine which implants and surgical techniques are currently being used by Irish orthopaedic surgeons and to examine the impact that a National Joint Registry may have on arthroplasty practice in Ireland.

Methods

The study consisted of a postal questionnaire sent to all public service consultant orthopaedic surgeons in The Republic of Ireland.

Results

We had a response rate of 76.6 %. Of this 76.6, 86.4 % regularly perform total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 84.7 % perform total knee arthroplasty. Of those who perform THA, 86.3 % use different implants in younger patients. Thirteen different femoral implants are used, and seven different knee implants. We conservatively estimate that at least 3,918 total hip arthroplasties and 2,604 total knee arthroplasties are performed in Ireland each year. At present we have no way to precisely monitor the number of arthroplasty procedures being performed, and we have no way of accurately monitoring the short- or long-term outcomes of the many implants used.

Conclusions

The establishment of a National Joint Registry for Ireland would benefit the Irish orthopaedic community, and given the large number of procedures being performed, may also be of benefit to the international orthopaedic community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nerssian OA, Martin G, Joshi RP, Su BW, Eftekhar NS (2005) A 15- to 25-year follow-up study primary Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. A single surgeon series. J Arthroplast 20:162–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Callaghan JJ, Bracha P, Liu SS, Piyaworakhun S, Goetz DD, Johnston RC (2009) Survivorship of a Charnley total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of thirty-five years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:2617–2621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mullins MM, Norbury W, Dowell JK, Heywood-Waddington M (2007) Thirty-year results of a prospective study of Charnley total hip arthroplasty by the posterior approach. J Arthroplast 22:833–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wroblewski BM, Siney PD, Fleming PA (2009) Charnley low-frictional torque arthroplasty. Follow-up for 30 to 40 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:447–450

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kolb A, Grubl A, Schneckener CD et al (2012) Cementless total hip arthroplasty with the rectangular titanium zweymuller stem: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1681–1684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Streit MR, Schroder K, Korber M et al (2012) High survival in young patients using a second generation uncemented total hip replacement. Int Orthop 36:1129–1136

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carrington NC, Sierra RJ, Gie GA, Hubble MJ, Timperley AJ, Howell JR (2009) The Exeter Universal cemented femoral component at 15 to 17 years: an update on the first 325 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:730–737

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ling RS, Charity J, Lee AJ, Whitehouse SL, Timperley AJ, Gie GA (2009) The long-term results of the original Exeter polished cemented femoral component: a follow-up report. J Arthroplast 24:511–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Maloney WJ (2001) National joint replacement registries: has the time come? J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:1582–1585

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Whitwell GS, Shine A, Young SK (2012) The articular surface replacement implant recall: a United Kingdom district hospital experience. Hip Int 22:362–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Horan F (2003) The National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:1–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Oduwole KO, Codd MB, Byrne F, O’Byrne J, Kenny PJ (2008) Irish National Joint Registry: a concept. Ir J Med Sci 177:347–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Curtin P, Harty J, Sheehan E, Nicholson P, McElwain J (2011) Self-reported complication rates following primary total hip arthroplasty in Ireland: fact or fiction. Ir J Med Sci 180:167–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T et al (2002) The Swedish total hip replacement register. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84(Suppl 2):2–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Philipson MR, Westwood MJ, Geoghegan JM, Henry APJ, Jefferiss CD (2005) Shortcomings of the National Joint Registry: a survey of consultants’ views. Ann R Coll Surg Eng 87:109–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Srinivasan A, Jung E, Levine BR (2012) Modularity of the femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20:214–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Skytta ET, Jarkko L, Antti E, Huhtala H, Ville R (2011) Increasing incidence of hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in 30- to 59-year-old patients. Acta Orthop 82:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Johanson PE, Fenstad AM, Furnes O et al (1995) Inferior outcome after hip resurfacing arthroplasty than after conventional arthroplasty. Evidence from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database, 1995 to 2007. Acta Orthop 2010(81):535–541

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gallo J, Kaminek P, Ticha V, Rihakova P, Ditmar R (2002) Particle disease. A comprehensive theory of periprosthetic osteolysis: a review. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 146:207–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gallo J, Barry Goodman S, Lostak J, Janout M (2012) Advantages and disadvantages of ceramic on ceramic total hip arthroplasty: a review. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 156:204–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Noble PC, Box GG, Kamaric E, Fink MJ, Alexander JW, Tullos HS (1995) The effect of ageing on the shape of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 316:31–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS (1988) The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:148–165

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Beaule PE, SchmalzreidTP Udomkiat P, Amstutz HC (2002) Jumbo femoral head for the treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:256–263

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Beaule PE (2004) Prevention and treatment of dislocation after total hip replacement using large diameter balls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:108–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang DC, Tatman P, Mehle S, Gioe TJ (2013) Cumulative revision rate is higher in metal-on-metal THA than metal-on-polyethylene THA: analysis of survival in a community registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res Feb 8 [Epub ahead of print]

  26. Whitwell GS, Shine A, Young SK (2012) The articular surface replacement recall: a United Kingdom district hospital experience. Hip Int 22:362–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Herbert P, Malchau H (2000) Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 71:111–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Herbert P, Malchau H (1997) How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty in Sweden. Clin Orthop Relat Res 344:44–60

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown, Blanchardstown, Dublin, 15, Ireland

    B. J. O’Neill, M. Nugent, J. P. Cashman, S. J. O’Flanagan, P. Keogh & P. J. Kenny

Authors
  1. B. J. O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Nugent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. P. Cashman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. J. O’Flanagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Keogh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. J. Kenny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. J. O’Neill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Neill, B.J., Nugent, M., Cashman, J.P. et al. The Irish National Joint Registry: where are we now?. Ir J Med Sci 183, 77–83 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-013-0979-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-013-0979-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation